News and events of the Ombudsman’s Office in December 2025 (information in links mostly available in Latvian).

Share your experience on cooperation with the Orphan’s and Custody Court

The Ombudsman Karina Palkova invites residents to share their experience of cooperation with the Orphan’s and Custody Courts – both positive situations and negative cases when they have encountered unethical or unprofessional actions of employees of Orphan’s and Custody Courts.

Discussion on accessibility of mass media content for people with disabilities

In Latvia, accessibility of media content for people with disabilities remains insufficient, especially in television and on the internet. On the positive side, both the media and their supervisors are ready to continue finding solutions to make the media accessible to everyone. On 3 December 2025, participants of the discussion on ‘Accessibility of mass media content for people with disabilities’ agreed on this. 

Ombudsperson: rotation of civil servants is a global practice for strengthening institutions, but in Latvia it often has a negative impact

A survey of the Ombudsman’s Office and the discussion on relocation of officials highlight that the rotation of civil servants is a recognised practice of strengthening public administration. At the same time, it was recognised that the framework was broad and unclear for some officials, which required guidelines for the development of a common transfer practice to achieve the objective of such rotation – transfer of good examples to an institution to be strengthened.

Ombudsperson: Sigulda municipality ignores the illegally established racetrack

Arbitrary adaptation and use of an existing asphalt field for motorsport in the racetrack ‘Slapjā ragana’ without the appropriate arrangement of construction documents in the local government and the uncoordinated change in the use of the area are to be regarded as arbitrary construction. Sigulda local government is directly responsible for controlling this situation and must therefore act proactively and strike a balance between the interests of the parties involved – the residents and the entrepreneurs – by 1 January 2026.

Ombudsperson calls for applications to the Disability Advisory Council

Ombudsperson invites organisations representing people with disabilities to apply for membership of the Ombudsman’s Disability Advisory Council. First meeting of the Council is planned for 22 January 2026 at 13:00 – 15:30.

Ombudsperson gives an inspirational speech at an event dedicated to whistleblowing

On 9 December, the Ombudsperson Karina Palkova delivered an inspirational speech entitled ‘Citizen’s co-responsibility to the State: Freedom of expression. A democratic state governed by the rule of law as a shared responsibility’ called on every resident of Latvia to be a responsible citizen using the whistleblowing mechanism, when there is a breach detrimental to the public interest. The Ombudsperson is convinced: “A democratic state cannot exist solely on the shoulders of institutions. It exists when its residents perceive the state as theirs, their field of responsibility. This manifests when a person sees a violation and decides an uncomfortable and risky path: speak and act.’

Ombudsman educates:

• Ombudsperson educates students on data protection and youth professionals on anti-discrimination and hate speech
• Training for sociological surveyors on accessible survey websites
• In Ventspils, young people learn about the importance of elections; in Gulbene – about freedom of expression and hate speech
• Safety of children in sports

Documents prepared by the Ombudsman’s Office:

• Study on transfer of officials: data, trends and risks
• Study on accessibility of mass media: written news (internet/printed press), radio, TV
• Disbursement of the allowance to persons with registered partnership
• Report on the social services centre Vecružina

Probleme beim Bürgergeld, wie zum Beispiel mit der Übernahme der Kosten für Miete oder Heizung, mit der Hilfe zum Lebensunterhalt, dem Wohngeld oder auch mit Leistungen der Krankenkassen oder Schwierigkeiten beim Kindergeld ­ die Bürgerbeauftragte für soziale Angelegenheiten des Landes Schleswig-Holstein, Samiah El Samadoni, hilft bei allen Fragen rund um das Sozialrecht. Darüber hinaus berät die Bürgerbeauftragte auch als Leiterin der Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Landes und als Ombudsperson in der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe im Rahmen dieser Sprechstunde. Zudem ist die Bürgerbeauftragte auch Beauftragte für die Landespolizei und damit Ansprechpartnerin für Beschwerden von Bürger*innen und Eingaben von Polizist*innen.

Ha aceptado revisar la documentación que debían entregar los autónomos, ya que en algunos casos no era exigible

El Síndic de Greuges de Cataluña celebra que el Departamento de Justicia y Calidad Democrática haya aceptado la sugerencia de revisar la documentación exigida a los trabajadores autónomos que soliciten el derecho a la asistencia jurídica gratuita.

La institución había recibido varias quejas de personas que trabajan por cuenta propia a las que se les había denegado el acceso a la justicia gratuita por no poder aportar las tres últimas declaraciones trimestrales del IRPF, un requisito que, según la normativa tributaria vigente, no les era exigible.

En concreto, la normativa del impuesto sobre la renta de las personas físicas establece que determinados profesionales —aquellos cuyos ingresos están mayoritariamente sujetos a retención o los que desarrollan actividades agrícolas, ganaderas o forestales— no están obligados a realizar pagos fraccionados. Sin embargo, no aportar esta documentación había comportado, en algunos casos, la denegación del derecho a la asistencia jurídica gratuita. El Síndic de Greuges consideró que esta práctica vulneraba el derecho fundamental a la tutela judicial efectiva, reconocido en el artículo 24 de la Constitución española, y que suponía un obstáculo injustificado para acceder a la justicia en condiciones de igualdad.

A raíz de la intervención del Síndic de Greuges, el Departamento de Justicia y Calidad Democrática ha admitido la necesidad de revisar y adecuar la documentación requerida y ha aceptado sustituir estos comprobantes por otros (como el certificado de retenciones e ingresos a cuenta del IRPF o el informe actualizado de las bases de cotización de la Seguridad Social) en los casos en que no sean exigibles.

El Síndic de Greuges valora positivamente esta respuesta, ya que contribuye a garantizar un acceso real y efectivo a la justicia, especialmente para las personas en situación de vulnerabilidad económica. Además, recuerda que la justicia gratuita es un instrumento esencial para garantizar la igualdad de derechos de toda la ciudadanía. Sin embargo, realizará un seguimiento de la cuestión para garantizar que este compromiso se cumpla en un plazo razonable.

Anlässlich des tragischen Todes eines Häftlings der Justizanstalt Hirtenberg macht Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz darauf aufmerksam, dass jahrelange Empfehlungen der Volksanwaltschaft hinsichtlich der Ausstattung besonders gesicherter Hafträume ignoriert wurden.

„Die kolportierten Vorwürfe zu Misshandlungen eines Häftlings durch Beamte in der Justizanstalt Hirtenberg, der schließlich verstarb, sind erschütternd. Die Ermittlung der Staatsanwaltschaft ist abzuwarten. Doch einige aus den Medien bekannte Informationen schildern Aspekte eines Systemversagens, auf das wir seit langem hinweisen. Es hätte nicht soweit kommen müssen, wenn Empfehlungen der Volksanwaltschaft umgesetzt worden wären“, betont die für den Strafvollzug zuständige Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz.

„Mit einer derartig starken psychischen Erkrankung war der Betroffene in einer Justizanstalt fehl am Platz. Regelmäßig appellieren wir, die notwendigen Ressourcen zu schaffen, um solchen Insassen Betreuung in psychiatrischen Einrichtungen zu ermöglichen“, so die Volksanwältin. Weiters wurde der Mann laut Medienberichten in einem sogenannten „Besonders gesicherten Haftraum“ angehalten, in dem sich eine Liegestelle aus Beton befindet, an der er sich schwer verletzte. „Seit Jahren empfehlen wir dem Justizministerium, bei der Ausstattung der besonders gesicherten Hafträume auf die Prävention von Selbstverletzungen oder Suizidversuchen zu achten. Diese Hafträume müssen über eine gefahrenfrei benutzbare Sitz- und Liegemöglichkeit verfügen. Statt Beton-Liegestellen empfehlen wir Liegequader aus Hartschaum. Der tragische Fall Hirtenberg zeigt, dass unsere Empfehlungen leider nicht umgesetzt wurden. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass dieser traurige Anlass zu einem Umdenken führt.“

Eine zweite externe Prüfung des Falls, wie von Justizministerin Anna Sporrer angekündigt, hält Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz für sehr sinnvoll: „Die Volksanwaltschaft steht als unabhängiges Kontrollorgan des Parlaments mit ihrer ganzen Expertise jederzeit dafür zur Verfügung.“

"Es hätte nicht soweit kommen müssen, wenn jahrelange Empfehlungen der Volksanwaltschaft umgesetzt worden wären", kritisiert Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz.

Das Anzeigen dieses Inhalts ist mit Ihren aktuellen Cookie Einstellungen im Zuge der DSGVO nicht möglich. Weitere Informationen finden Sie in der Datenschutzerklärung.

Question:

Can a public body refuse to give reasons as to why it will not implement the Ombudsman`s recommendations ?

Answer:

No

Why ?

Across democratic Ombudsman systems, public bodies are ordinarily expected to give reasons when they decline to implement an ombudsman’s recommendations. An Ombudsman is entitled to receive, examine, and assess those reasons. 

When he investigates, both in the case of complaints submitted by persons or on his own initiative, the Ombudsman can make recommendations to Government, as broadly defined in the Ombudsman Act 1995 [as amended] (Chapter 385 of the Laws of Malta).

The recommendations are not executive in nature nor are they binding orders, but they carry strong moral authority. In Malta the Ombudsman is an oversight institution that enjoys the protection of the Constitution (Art 64A of the Constitution).  Moral authority is not an abstract or academic issue but a matter to be seriously considered by Government (including the public service and the public administration) as it involves (but not only) observance on its part of the principles of good governance, that include accountability. Therefore, although the Ombudsman’s recommendations are not binding, they are not optional in any casual sense and cannot be brushed aside without explanation.

Public bodies have a duty to co-operate with the Ombudsman, which includes responding to investigations, findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman.  

Responding includes stating what steps public bodies have taken or intend to take, in case of acceptance to comply with recommendations, and also includes giving reasons why recommendations will not be implemented. 

If a public body rejects a recommendation and gives reasons, the Ombudsman may examine whether those reasons are factually accurate, legally sound, rational, proportionate and consistent with Art 22(1) and (2) of the Ombudsman Act 1995, and with the principles good administration.

Failure by a public body to provide reasons, or when it provides manifestly inadequate reasons, constitutes a failure to co-operate.  Giving reasons is not a formality, but a serious matter that can be escalated by the Ombudsman first to the Prime Minister and then to the House of Representatives as provided in Art 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act 1995.

Although the Ombudsman does not have executive authority to compel compliance, he does have authority to scrutinise and criticise a refusal in public.  That authority is inherent in his oversight function that is conferred by the law itself, is essential to maintaining administrative accountability and for the effectiveness of the institution. 

The oversight function of the Ombudsman includes filing another report critical of a refusal to implement, and more so, when the public service and/or the public administration (as public bodies) does not give reasons for refusal to implement recommendations.  

Without such scrutiny, recommendations could be disregarded without accountability.  A reasoned response to recommendations, and the willingness of public bodies to engage seriously with findings — are core indicators of good governance and respect for the rule of law.

In the United Kingdom, the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman are not binding but public bodies are expected to respond and explain acceptance or refusal. They have to notify the Ombudsman of action taken, or the reasons for not complying.  The Ombudsman can examine the reasons and assess whether the reasons for refusal are adequate.  A special report may be sent to Parliament.  Through its Select Committees, the House of Commons may summon the public body to sustain refusal to implement.  

In Canada, both at the provincial and at the federal level, recommendations of Ombudsmen are non-binding, but public bodies have a duty to co-operate with Ombudsmen and give reasons for non-compliance with their recommendations.  Failure to do so is treated as maladministration.  When reasons for refusal are given, Ombudsmen evaluate whether refusal to implement are reasonable, evidence-based, and legally defensible. 

In Australia, both as regards the Commonwealth as well as the State Ombudsmen, public agencies have to justify the non-implementation of recommendations.  

Likewise in New Zealand.  The Ombudsmen Act 1975 (which served as a model for the Malta Ombudsman Act 1995) requires public agencies to advise what steps have been taken or are proposed to be taken following receipt of recommendations from Ombudsmen.  Refusals must be reasoned and the reasons can be reviewed by Ombudsmen.  When reasons are found to be unsatisfactory, Parliament can be alerted.

The effectiveness of an ombudsman system depends upon a structured dialogue between the Ombudsman and public authorities. That dialogue presupposes that recommendations will be taken seriously, that refusals will be reasoned, and that the reasons given will themselves be open to independent scrutiny. 

An interpretation that denies the Ombudsman the right to receive and evaluate reasons for non-implementation, that would permit public bodies to reject recommendations without explanation, or to shield their refusal, would undermine legislative intent and weaken administrative accountability.  

The role of the Ombudsman to secure reasoned engagement when he finds maladministration would be frustrated if public bodies were permitted to treat recommendations as immune from critical review.

When an Ombudsman finds maladministration and recommends a remedy, the public body is entitled to disagree. But it is not entitled to disagree silently, and it is not entitled to disagree unreasonably.  If a public authority can simply decline and close the file, then the Ombudsman system becomes a decorative ornament rather than a constitutional safeguard.